Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mullen v. Meredith Corp.green2 sentences2023See Mullen v. Meredith Corp., 271 Or App 698, 707 , 353 P3d 598 (2015) (addressing the second step of the anti-SLAPP inquiry where the trial court did not because the question was fairly presented to the trial court 7 “There is no dispute that Oregon modeled its anti-SLAPP statute on California’s.” Handy, 360 Or at 618 . 2023See Mullen v. Meredith Corp., 271 Or App 698, 707 , 353 P3d 598 (2015) (addressing the second step of the anti-SLAPP inquiry where the trial court did not because the question was fairly presented to the trial court 7 “There is no dispute that Oregon modeled its anti-SLAPP statute on California’s.” Handy, 360 Or at 618 . | 4 | 4 |
Plotkin v. State Accident Insurance Fundgreen2 sentences2024See Plotkin v. SAIF, 280 Or App 812, 829 , 385 P3d 1167 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 851 (2017) (noting that we have yet to address whether ORS 31.150 requires a nonmoving party to produce evidence capable of defeating affirmative defenses in order to meet their prima facie burden at the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis); Johnson v. Monsanto Co., 333 Or App 678 , 700, 554 P3d 290 (2024) (declining to undertake analysis on an issue when the party “has failed to do so itself” in its briefing). 2024See Plotkin v. SAIF, 280 Or App 812, 829 , 385 P3d 1167 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 851 (2017) (noting that we have yet to address whether ORS 31.150 requires a nonmoving party to produce evidence capable of defeating affirmative defenses in order to meet their prima facie burden at the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis); Johnson v. Monsanto Co., 333 Or App 678 , 700, 554 P3d 290 (2024) (declining to undertake analysis on an issue when the party “has failed to do so itself” in its briefing). | 3 | 3 |
Handy v. Lane Countygreen2 sentences2023See Mullen v. Meredith Corp., 271 Or App 698, 707 , 353 P3d 598 (2015) (addressing the second step of the anti-SLAPP inquiry where the trial court did not because the question was fairly presented to the trial court 7 “There is no dispute that Oregon modeled its anti-SLAPP statute on California’s.” Handy, 360 Or at 618 . 2023See Mullen v. Meredith Corp., 271 Or App 698, 707 , 353 P3d 598 (2015) (addressing the second step of the anti-SLAPP inquiry where the trial court did not because the question was fairly presented to the trial court 7 “There is no dispute that Oregon modeled its anti-SLAPP statute on California’s.” Handy, 360 Or at 618 . | 2 | 2 |
Neumann v. Lilesgreen2 sentences2016See Neumann v. Liles, 261 Or App 567 , 580 n 8, 323 P3d 521 (2014), rav’d, 358 Or 706 , 369 P3d 1117 (2016) (“We save for another day the question of whether and to what extent ORS 31.150 authorizes parties to litigate affirmative defenses in the context of a special motion to strike.”). 2016See Neumann v. Liles, 261 Or App 567 , 580 n 8, 323 P3d 521 (2014), rav’d, 358 Or 706 , 369 P3d 1117 (2016) (“We save for another day the question of whether and to what extent ORS 31.150 authorizes parties to litigate affirmative defenses in the context of a special motion to strike.”). | 1 | 1 |
Neumann v. Lilesgreen2 sentences2016See Neumann v. Liles, 261 Or App 567 , 580 n 8, 323 P3d 521 (2014), rav’d, 358 Or 706 , 369 P3d 1117 (2016) (“We save for another day the question of whether and to what extent ORS 31.150 authorizes parties to litigate affirmative defenses in the context of a special motion to strike.”). 2016See Neumann v. Liles, 261 Or App 567 , 580 n 8, 323 P3d 521 (2014), rav’d, 358 Or 706 , 369 P3d 1117 (2016) (“We save for another day the question of whether and to what extent ORS 31.150 authorizes parties to litigate affirmative defenses in the context of a special motion to strike.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 10862981
neutral
1 sentence2026Nonprecedential Memo Op: 349 Or App 769 (2026) 773 we conclude that the trial court did not err. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Young v. Davis
green
1 sentence2016In resolving special motions to strike under ORS 31.150, a trial court must “limit[] its analysis to the question [of] whether plaintiff had met [its] burden ‘by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case.’” Young, 259 Or App at 507 (quoting ORS 31.150(3)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.